The US media still largely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year. As a result, most Americans are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

Iran Converts Uranium in Defiance of UN

By Francois Murphy VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran defied the United Nations (news - web sites) on Tuesday by announcing it has begun converting a large amount of raw uranium to prepare it for enrichment, a process that can be used to develop atomic bombs.

The announcement was likely to provoke an angry reaction from Washington and increase suspicion in Israel, which plans to buy 500 "bunker buster" bombs from the United States that could take out Iran's underground atomic facilities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters Iran had begun converting 37 tonnes of raw "yellowcake" uranium to process it for use in nuclear centrifuges -- the machines that enrich uranium.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, adopted a resolution on Saturday calling on Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment. The United States, Russia and the European Union (news - web sites) reinforced the message on Monday by urging Tehran to comply.

"Some of the amount of the 37 tonnes has been used. The tests have been successful but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material," said Aghazadeh, one of Iran's vice presidents, who is attending a general conference of the Vienna-based IAEA.

One nuclear expert has said that once converted from yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for enrichment centrifuges, Iran would eventually be able to enrich enough uranium for up to five nuclear weapons.

The IAEA is aware of Iran's plan to convert the uranium for the enrichment process and said it would monitor the tests.

"IAEA (chief) Mohamed ElBaradei continues to call on Iran, as did the board, to suspend such a test as part of their confidence building measures," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites) said Iran was determined to press ahead with its atomic program even if it brought an end to U.N. checks of the Islamic Republic's nuclear sites.

"We are determined to obtain peaceful atomic technology even if it causes the stop of international supervision," he said.

BROKEN PROMISES

They (Iran) have a continuous record of making and then breaking promises, both to the board as well as to others," a State Department official said in New York, where Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

"This is the pattern of a country that has not made the strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons program."

Iran had promised Britain, France and Germany last October it would freeze all activities related to uranium enrichment.

But Tehran angered the EU's "big three" by announcing earlier this year that the production of feed material for centrifuges would not be included in the freeze.

The resolution said the IAEA board would consider whether "further steps" would be necessary if Iran failed to implement the suspension -- which diplomats said would mean a referral to the U.N. Security Council and possibly economic sanctions.

The United States and some other nations believe Tehran intends to use fissile material for weapons. Iran denies that and says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Israel has made clear it will never permit Iran, which does not recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist, to become a nuclear power.

Diplomats and analysts say Israel would prefer diplomacy to war and a coalition if military action were needed against Iran, but is ready to act alone if needed.

In June, the Pentagon (news - web sites) said it was considering the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 bombs, designed to destroy reinforced targets, as part of a munitions package meant "to contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives."

Israeli security sources said the sale would go through and one told Reuters: "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria."

(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Louis Charbonneau in Vienna and Arshad Mohammed in New York)

3
posted on 09/21/2004 9:07:58 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ALARMED AT IRANS NUCLEAR POSITION

Posted Tuesday, September 21, 2004

TEHRAN, 21 Sep. (IPS) The Islamic Republic of Iran, in a visible defiance and disdain for the international community, announced Tuesday that on line with its nuclear policy, it has successfully converted tones of yellow cake into refined uranium gas.

The news was delivered to reporters in Vienna by Mr. Qlamreza Aqazadeh, the Head of Irans Atomic Energy Organisation at almost the same time that in Tehran, Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Khatami was assuring the nation that the Islamic Republic would push on with its controversial nuclear program even if it risks international isolation.

President Khatami's warning and Aqazadehs announcement came exactly two days after the United Nations international nuclear watchdog called on Iran to stop all activities related to enriching uranium or it might be taken to the UNs Security Council for economic sanctions.

Some of the amount of the 37 tons of yellow cake has been used and tests were successful.

Iran rejected the resolution approved Saturday 18 September by the 35 members of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but reiterated that it would continue cooperation.

The international community had to acknowledge our natural and legal right and open the path for understanding... so we can accept comprehensive international supervision and we can continue our path to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes", the powerless President said, warning that

"otherwise we will continue on this path even if the result is the cutting off of international supervision".

Addressing a parade marking the beginning of "Sacred Defence Week" that marks the anniversary of the outbreak of war with Iraq in 1980, Mr. Khatami said "we have made our choice and it is now the turn of others to chose", a reference to the IAEA, which gave Iran until November to come clean on its nuclear intentions and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

A clause in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) permits any country to withdraw on three months' notice. North Korea withdrew in 2001, allowing it to proceed with the separation of plutonium from spent uranium and presumably the development of a nuclear bomb.

However Mr. Khatami assured that Iran was not after making nuclear weapons. "If we are under supervision or not, we will in no way try to acquire nuclear weapons because it is against our religion and culture. We are opposed to nuclear weapons", he said.

But while analysts said the Presidents warnings might be for domestic consumptions, it was Aqazadehs declaration that sent alarms to Washington, Tel Aviv, the European Union and the IAEA. "Some of the amount of the 37 tons has been used," Mr. Aqazadeh told journalists as he was entering the annual meeting of the IAEAs members, referring to a quantity of yellowcake, or uranium oxide, which Iran had earlier indicated it planned to convert into gas

"The tests have been successful but these test have to be continued using the rest of the material", he said, adding that though Iran did not accept the last resolution of the Agencys directors, yet it would continue to be fully opened to inspections.

Under the NPT regulations, Iran has the right to enjoy nuclear technologies for peaceful and civilian uses, like producing electricity, a right recognised by the IAEAs latest resolution

No country with a project of producing 7.000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy can possibly depend on foreign providers for fuelling the stations.

But the United States and Israel alleges that Irans ruling ayatollahs main aim is to divert the technology for building an atomic arsenal to be used against the Jewish State.

Brushing aside the allegations, a senior Iranian official associated closely to the countrys nuclear programmes told Iran Press Service that Iran was ready to accept any safeguards imposed by the United Nations agency to ensure its enrichment activities do not go beyond the 3.5 percent concentration of the uranium-235 isotope needed for its power plant

The IAEA has this system and we welcome that it is installed in Iran and kept under its supervision, the official said, adding, No country with a project of producing 7.000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy can possibly depend on foreign providers for fuelling the stations.

To satisfy its electricity needs, Iran plans the construction of 6 more nuclear-powered electric stations in addition of the one that it is building in the Persian Gulf port of Booshehr with assistance from Russia.

It was against that background that the Israeli newspaper Haarretz revealed Tuesday that the United States would sell Israel 5,000 smart bombs for $319 million.

Known by the military designations GBU-27 or GBU-28, "bunker busters" are guided by lasers or satellites and can penetrate up to 10 metres (30 feet) of earth and concrete. Israel may already have some of the bombs for its U.S.-supplied F-15 fighter jets. The Pentagon told Congress that the bombs are meant to maintain Israel's qualitative advantage, and advance U.S. strategic and tactical interests.

Though Haaretz said Israel has some similar weapons, which it has used against Palestinians extremists in Gaza, but the British news agency Reuters quoted un-named official sources saying that the bombs could be used to destroy Irans nuclear facilities.

"This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran or possibly Syria", Reuters quoted the official.

A banner at the military parade stating "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a Shahab-2 missile, while a banner saying "We will crush America under our feet" was on the side of a trailer carrying the latest Shahab-3 missile, correspondents reported from the Iranian Capital.

The missile, whose name means "meteor" or "shooting star" in Farsi, is thought to be capable of carrying a one-tonne warhead at least 1,300 kilometers (800 miles), well within range of Israel.

"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enables us to destroy the most distant targets", said an official commentary accompanying the parade, which was carried live on state television.

ENDS IRAN NUCLEAR 21904

4
posted on 09/21/2004 10:02:24 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Clerical body calls for 'Islamic' Iraq

By Tom CarterTHE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body of powerful Muslim clerics that chooses the country's supreme leader, opened its 12th session Sunday calling for an Islamic republic in Iraq. In his opening speech, the assembly's speaker, Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, urged Iraqi leaders to unite to expel foreign troops in Iraq and establish a government based on the principles of Islam similar to the one in Iran, according to reports in the Tehran Times yesterday. The Iraqi leadership must "expel the occupiers and establish an Islamic government," the ayatollah said.

He also said that the United States and Britain were responsible for "the ruthless massacre of the Iraqi people and must be punished by a competent court." The export of Iran's Islamic fundamentalist revolution, which was led by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has been a goal of the mullahs in Tehran since they forced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into exile in 1979. The United States, as a counterweight to Iran's radical Islamic theocracy, supported the secular Ba'athist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein through the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. It broke with Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The United States still views an emerging democratic Iraq as a counterbalance to Islamic radicalism in the region. In an interview at The Washington Times last week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Iran was "providing support" to the insurgents in Iraq, but it was not clear to what extent. He also emphasized that most of the insurgency in Iraq was "self-generating" and homegrown. "I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support. How much and how influential their support is, I can't be sure, and it's hard to get a good read on it," Mr. Powell said. "There is a practical limit to how much influence the Iranian [Shi'ites] will ever have on the Iraqi [Shi'ites]," he said. Michael O'Hanlon, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution, said yesterday's declaration in Tehran could "backfire" in Iraq. "Iraqis do not want to be seen as pawns of Iran," Mr. O'Hanlon said. "If Iran pushes too much, that is likely to turn Iraqis off, even if they are [Shi'ites] and share some of the same goals." Mr. O'Hanlon said Iraqis, who are Arab, very nationalistic, but majority Shi'ite, carry some resentment that historically Iraq was the center of Shi'ite scholarship, but that Iranians, who are Persian, have usurped that position in Muslim intellectual circles. "We need to be vigilant, but there is a natural law here that pushes Iraq and Iran apart, the more Iran tries to meddle," he said. Michael Ledeen, at the American Enterprise Institute, has been a critic of Iran's government and the goals of the mullahs for years. "They have wanted an Islamic republic next door all along," Mr. Ledeen said yesterday. Asked whether in trying to attain that goal, Iran was supporting the insurgency in Iraq, he answered, "yes," but added that no one knows the extent of the support. "They believe that if there is a successful, stable democratic government in Iraq, they are doomed. ... They will go to any length to ensure their survival."

5
posted on 09/21/2004 10:59:58 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Rafsanjani has bought 86 Mill Helicopters from Russia Mill Helicopter Factory. They were all used! The newest one was manufactured in 1986!

The Russians just gave it a fresh paint job prior to delivery. The engines were not even overhauled. After about 200 Flying hours, most of them will be out of action as they need overhaul.

I can tell you for a fact that what they have purchased will not last 2 days in actual flying combat conditions!

The MI-35 has been so obsolete that they had to purchase the upgrade version. The upgrading of MI-35 costs around $350,000.

He has paid on the average of $3,000,000 per helicopter and for 20 units of MI-35 upgrade an additional sum of $350,000 per helicopter.

However, the commissions on these helicopters to him were fantastic! He made 2 billion dollars!

He also purchased 9,000,000 rounds of Kalashnikov assault Rifle ammunitions along with 80,000 used Kalashnikov assault rifles.

The assault rifles were $450.00 each and ammunitions rounds were $2.50 a piece. The ammunitions were the only new product that came with 30 and 60 rounds rapid clips.

The man is in used equipment purchase as commission is much higher!

The total package of 9,000,000 rounds of ammunitions, Assault Rifles and Helicopters was a Whopping 5 Billion US Dollar purchase. All used with the exception of ammunition rounds.

Now you can estimate how much he did pocket from this single deal!

Rafsanjani made 2 billion dollars in commissions! His commission was deposited in a numbered account in Liechtenstein and some in the Isle of the Man off shore bank account.

IRI parliament had approved this purchase. Although there were some members that had questioned why Rafsanjani had to be the broker of this deal, Khamanei overruled the members and gave the green light for him to go ahead!

7
posted on 09/21/2004 11:09:15 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

SUSPECTED NUKE BUNKERS SPOTTED IN IRAN

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- A U.S. research institute has released satellite photographs that detail suspected nuclear weapons testing facilities at an Iranian military base outside Teheran.

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security has released photographs of the Iranian military base at Parchin where nuclear weapons activities were suspected of taking place. The seven satellite images show buildings where nuclear weapons components were suspected of being prepared for testing.

Parchin is located about 30 kilometers southeast of Teheran, and the Iranian government has asserted that the facility has long been used for the testing of chemical explosives. The International Atomic Energy Agency has requested access to inspect the site, operated by the Iranian Defense Industries Organization.

The U.S. institute, which contains leading nuclear experts and former officials, said Parchin could be converted to a nuclear weapons research and assembly facility. The institute said Parchin could also be used for testing nuclear explosives as well as missile and rocket delivery systems.

8
posted on 09/21/2004 11:12:46 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

IAEA Ultimatum to Iran Suits All Parties to the Row

Amir Taheri, Arab News

A Persian proverb says: From this signpost on the road to the next, there is hope! And it was in that spirit that the International Atomic Energy Agency decided last Saturday to give Iran until Nov. 25 to comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The resolution passed by the IAEAs 35-nation board of governors criticizes Iran for lack of candor over its nuclear program and calls on Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities that could contribute to producing fuel for a nuclear bomb.

The resolution warns that the agency considers it necessary that Iran halt its uranium enrichment programs, and meet all of the agencys demands within the next eight weeks.

But is this an ultimatum?

Hardly. This is, in fact, the third time in two years that the IAEA has fixed a signpost for Iran before moving to the next with no more than some timid huffing and puffing. IAEA spokesmen have made it clear that, come Nov. 25, they would simply review the situation once again. The new signpost suits all sides of this bizarre dispute.

The Iranian leadership will get two more months in which to hasten whatever it is that they are doing. The Bush administration, which has been making loud noises about the threat of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, is happy because the potentially explosive issue is postponed until after the US presidential election in November.

The Europeans, who have already burned their fingers by trying to coax Iran into a diplomatic solution, have their own reason to be happy: The IAEAs decision gives them time to see who will be the next US president. If Bush is re-elected, the European Union would find it hard to continue their diplomacy with the Iranian leadership. If Sen. John Kerry is the winner, however, new horizons could open for deal-making with Iran.

It is important to understand what this dispute is really about. On the surface it is about uranium enrichment. The process, in which uranium is converted into a gas and spun in centrifuges to concentrate more fissile isotopes, is used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors, but it can also produce material for making nuclear weapons. Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, provided the IAEA is allowed to keep an eye on the operation to make sure it will not be used for weapon-making.

Iran had a uranium enrichment program in 1978. At the time Iran was also a shareholder in Eurodif, a company formed to mine uranium in Gabon and enrich it in France, Spain and Iran. No one objected to the Iranian program because Iran, one of the 11 countries that had originally sponsored the NPT, was not suspected of seeking nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt that Iran has the scientific, technological and industrial base to produce weapons grade uranium. But this is also true of almost all other signatories of the NPT, including those that do not belong to the so-called  nuclear weapons club. The real question, therefore, is this: Does the IAEA trust Irans present leadership?

The present Iranian leadership has never committed itself to foreswearing nuclear weapons forever, and cannot do that for at least two reasons.

The first is that no regime worth its salt will voluntarily limit its options when it comes to national defense, especially when none of its neighbors are asked to do the same. Iran is at the center of a region with the largest number of nuclear powers: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and the United States, thanks to the NATO presence in Turkey. Ali Khamenei has issued a statement forbidding the use of nuclear weapons, but not manufacturing them.

The second reason is that the present Iranian government is in conflict not only with the regional status quo, which it sees as a threat, but also against the so-called global system dominated by the Islamic Republics archfoe, the United States.

Irans national defense doctrine, as developed since 1989, is based on the so-called pre-emptive defense concept.

The assumption is that the enemies of the Islamic Republic will, at some point, use military threat and/or action to check the spread of its influence, especially in its natural habitat of the Middle East, the Caspian Basis and the Gulf.

To meet those threats the Islamic Republic needs three assets: A capacity to sustain large casualties in long wars, a massive arsenal of medium and long-range missiles to compensate for the weakness of its air force, and a nuclear arsenal to deter the big powers, meaning the United States, that wish to curb Tehrans regional ambitions.

Without its nuclear component, the Iranian national defense doctrine would have little value beyond diplomatic gesticulations.

The question therefore is not to persuade Iran to abandon the nuclear component of its doctrine but to revise its regional and global ambitions.

An Iran that does not want to export its ideology or reshape the map of the region will not be a threat even if it has nuclear weapons. One question that is often asked is why should Iran be singled out while others, notably India, Pakistan and Israel, are allowed to do as they please? The answer is that India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories of the NPT and have no obligation to act in accordance with the rules of the IAEA.

Developing and deploying nuclear weapons is not illegal. The Islamic Republic is not the victim of any conspiracy. It could withdraw from the NPT, and do as it pleases. The problem is that the Iranian leadership wants to stay in the NPT so as to benefit from legal access to technology, equipment and material. If they withdraw from the IAEA whatever they buy would be regarded as illegal and banned by the signatories of the NPT.

The problem, as stated above, is one of trust. The IAEAs chief, Mohamed El-Baradei, made that point abundantly clear when he said Iran needed to suspend its enrichment activities in order to restore confidence.

In July, Iran resumed the manufacture of centrifuge parts and the assembly of centrifuge units, while pledging not to use those to enrich uranium.

Trust and confidence, of course, are subjective notions. There is no way for IAEA ever to find out exactly what Iran is up to without sincere cooperation from the Tehran leadership.

The IAEA was able to close down the nuclear programs of Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and South Africa because it was invited by the governments of those countries to do so. The most recent example of voluntary nuclear disarmament came from Libya which transferred the material and the equipment it had assembled to the United States.

The real question is whether or not the major powers are prepared to accept the Islamic Republic on its own terms, which includes a capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons, or will be able to persuade Tehran to abandon its revolutionary ambitions and seek a normal place within the global system? And this, as all those involved know without saying so, is a geo-strategic problem, not a technical one about uranium enrichment and centrifuges.

9
posted on 09/21/2004 11:21:56 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions

Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, which could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic missiles as a warning against attack.

The BLU-109 bombs, which can penetrate more than 7ft of reinforced concrete, are among "smart" munitions being sold to Israel under America's military aid programme.

The Shahab-3 ballistic missile, that has the range to hit Israel, on parade in Teheran

The US and Israeli governments did not comment publicly but Israeli security sources said the deal would go through. "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria," an Israeli source said.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said the sale would take place after the November presidential election.

Israel regards Iran as its greatest strategic enemy and has issued thinly-veiled threats of military action to try to stop Teheran's nuclear programme if diplomatic efforts fail to halt it.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week gave Teheran an informal deadline to halt all aspects of its controversial uranium enrichment programme by November - and answer all outstanding nuclear questions - or face referral to the United Nations for possible sanctions.

However, Iran has denounced the resolution as "illegal" and defiantly announced that it would continue converting 37 tonnes of yellowcake - milled uranium oxide - into uranium hexafluoride, the feed-material for uranium enrichment.

Teheran said it may renege on a promise to Europe to "suspend" enrichment. It says it seeks to make nuclear fuel for its planned electricity-generating reactors but the West fears that the same process could make material for weapons.

Western diplomats believe that America, or Israel, could resort to air strikes against nuclear facilities. Israel's bombing of Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981, which set back Iraq's nuclear programme, is held up as a model of "pre-emptive action".

Seeking to underline the point, Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. A banner proclaiming "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a 450-mile Shahab-2 missile. Another saying "We will crush America under our feet" graced a trailer carrying a 930-mile Shahab-3 missile.

"The Shahab-3 missiles, with different ranges, enable us to destroy the most distant targets," said the commentary.

Speaking at the parade, President Mohammad Khatami said Iran would not give up its "natural and legal right" to nuclear know-how, but he also tried to reassure the West.

"We've made our choice: yes to peaceful nuclear technology, no to atomic weapons," he said.

10
posted on 09/21/2004 11:27:44 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Iran defies U.N. order with plan to enrich uranium

By Nicholas KralevTHE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iran said yesterday it was preparing to enrich uranium, taking a key step toward the capability of making atomic weapons just three days after the United Nations' nuclear agency demanded that it suspend all such activities.

The announcement came amid renewed speculation that Israel, which feels directly threatened by Iran's nuclear program, might use one of 500 bunker-buster bombs and other military equipment that it has requested from the United States to strike Iran's underground atomic facilities.

"This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria," an Israeli source was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, chief of staff of Israel's air force, was quoted last week as saying that if the government decides that a military solution to Iran's nuclear development is required, "then the military has to provide a solution."

But Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed skepticism about the prospects for such a strike during a meeting last week with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

"I don't want to get too deeply into this, but based on what I know about the [Iranian nuclear] program, it is not one that lends itself to a simple military solution," Mr. Powell said.

The secretary did not elaborate, but Newsweek reported this week that the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency had conducted war games on a strike at the Iranian program and had been unable to keep the conflict from escalating.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said yesterday that Iran had started converting 37 tons of raw "yellowcake" uranium for use in nuclear centrifuges  the machines that enrich uranium.

"Some of the amount of the 37 tons has been used. The tests have been successful, but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material," Mr. Aghazadeh, one of Iran's vice presidents, told reporters in Vienna, Austria, where he was attending a general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman for the IAEA, said the agency was aware of Iran's plans and would monitor its activities.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei "continues to call on Iran, as did the board, to suspend such a test as part of their confidence-building measures," she said.

Iran continued to insist yesterday that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

"We are determined to obtain peaceful atomic technology, even if it causes the stop of international supervision," said President Mohammad Khatami.

U.S. officials were not surprised by the announcement and their comments echoed previous statements on the subject.

"They have a continuous record of making and then breaking promises, both to the [IAEA] board as well as to others," a State Department official said in reference to the Iranian government.

"This is the pattern of a country that has not made the strategic decision to give up its nuclear-weapons program," the official said.

Both U.S. and Israeli officials declined to comment on an article in the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz yesterday, which said the United States would conclude a $319 million sale of military equipment to Israel, including 500 bunker-buster bombs, after Election Day.

Israel's announcement came after the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible military sale to Israel worth as much as $319 million.

"Israel purchases a wide range of military equipment from the United States on an ongoing basis," one Israeli official said. "We can't confirm specifics of any particular sale."

On June 1, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a "possible" sale to Israel of "joint direct attack munitions, as well as associated equipment and services." whose "total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $319 million."

As part of the deal, the United States will sell Israel nearly 5,000 smart bombs in one of the largest weapons deals between the allies in years, wire service reports quoted Israeli military officials as saying.

The deal will expand Israel's existing supply of the weapons, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The agency listed the items that the Israeli government had requested, including the bunker-buster bombs.

"This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East," the agency said in June.

"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region," the agency said.

Although U.S. and Israeli officials said the deal in question is no different from many other such sales over the years, Iranian officials were quick yesterday to issue warnings.

An Iranian defense ministry spokesman said a U.S.-Israel deal that targets Iran could be "psychological warfare to test us."

"Our response to any invasive measure will be massive," said Massoud Jazaeri, spokesman for Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

This article is based in part on wire service reports.

11
posted on 09/21/2004 11:39:23 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Analysis: Iran's free pass on nuke program

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, left, looks at Iran's most modern ballistic missile, the Shahab-3, which has the capacity to carry nuclear warheads, displayed by armed forces during a military parade, marking the 24th anniversary of the outset of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) Photo: AP

WASHINGTON

The International Atomic Energy Agency last week gave Iran an additional few months to consider abandoning its uranium enrichment programs, allowing Teheran more time to potentially advance toward nuclear weapons capability, and throwing the Bush administration's efforts to have Iran's program referred to the UN Security Council for censure into serious doubt.

Not only did the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog group, not refer the Iranian program to the Security Council, where sanctions might be imposed, it simply asked Iran to "suspend all enrichment-related activities" as a way "to promote confidence."

The IAEA's Director-General Muhammad el-Baradei said he had found no evidence that Iran was seeking nuclear capability in order to produce weapons.

"We haven't seen in Iran any material imported or produced that could be used for nuclear weapons. That is the good news. We haven't also seen any of their small experiments directly related to a nuclear weapon program... so I'm not sure we are facing an imminent threat," Baradei told CNN on Sunday.

With that belief, analysts say, there is little hope that Iran will suffer any consequences for its covert efforts to enrich uranium, and is thus bound to become self-sufficient in producing nuclear weapons at some time in the near future. Israeli intelligence chiefs warned in July that Iran would have a nuclear weapons capacity by 2007.

The IAEA's ruling last week, says Michael Ledeen, a Freedom Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a strong advocate of regime change in Teheran, "means we've given Iran another pass until the end of the November."

Asked if last week's deliberations were a setback for US policy, which for over a year has been focused on getting Iran's nuclear program referred to the Security Council, Ledeen said, "This is more of the same, however you want to define it. We're not making any progress. The UN and the Europeans keep saying the same thing every three months. You wait every three months and eventually Iran has an atomic bomb. Then you don't need to worry about this failed policy."

Ledeen also believes that even if the Iranian program were to be referred to the Security Council, it is unlikely that sanctions on oil or natural gas  the only ones that might have an impact on the regime in Teheran  would be imposed. And even if they were, he says, "oil is fungible. Saddam proved oil sanctions don't really work. So who are we kidding?"

Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who proposes more engagement with Iran, says it was clear the IAEA would not make a decision on what to do about Iran before the US presidential election in November.

And he predicts that the issue could be punted even further into the future, until after the scheduled elections in Iraq and the US presidential inauguration in January.

"I don't know realistically if we're going to get to the UN Security Council," Takeyh said.

The IAEA, he says, "produces ambiguous reports" and seems unprepared to find Iran in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

One positive outcome of the recent deliberations on what to do about Iran's nuclear program, Takeyh says, is that there appears to be a "greater degree of harmony" between the US and the Europeans on the need to halt Iranian uranium enrichment.

The Europeans were embarrassed when Iran resumed its enrichment programs after vowing last year to a European delegation that it would halt them.

Nevertheless, the apparent impotence of the IAEA board members, including the Europeans, has drawn rebuke from Capitol Hill.

"It is disconcerting to see that many of our allies have once again failed to heed the warnings of history. Believing that appeasement will change Iranian behavior, the IAEA Board members, particularly our European partners, have extended Iran's lifeline and further reinforced the regime's hands," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the House Committee on International Relations.

"Iranian cooperation has only come when punitive UN Security Council action has been raised The weakness demonstrated by the international community at the recent IAEA meetings has sent a message to Iran that it can continue its activities without suffering any real, concrete consequences."

12
posted on 09/21/2004 11:48:03 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

BAGHDAD  Iraqi officials said the Palestinian Hamas organization has sent operatives to carry out suicide strikes in Iraq.

They said Hamas agents were hired by both Iran as well as Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, the Jordanian national regarded as the lethal Sunni insurgent in Iraq, official said citing evidence from the Defense Ministry.

"There's less money for Hamas in Palestine and Syria," an Iraqi official said. "The result is that Hamas agents have been recruited by Al Zarqawi and Iran for operations in Iraq."

In 2003, Iraqi officials began asserting that Hamas agents were operating in Iraq against security and military forces as well as the coalition. So far, the government in Baghdad has not presented any evidence of a Hamas presence, Middle East Newsline reported.

On Sept. 19, the Shi'ite-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution accused Hamas of being responsible for a series of recent car bombings in Iraq. A council representative was quoted by state-owned Iraq Television as saying that 200 agents were sent to Iraq from Iran and have been responsible for recent attacks.

"They have been deployed all across Iraq and launched terrorist attacks and explosions of the Iraqi police and National Guards bases," the representative said.

Officials said Iran began using Hamas in 2004 for operations against police and National Guard targets in Shi'ite cities and suburbs. They said some of the Hamas agents joined the Iranian-financed Mahdi Army, led by cleric Muqtada Sadr, and participated in the Shi'ite revolt in April.

For his part, Sadr has termed the Mahdi Army an "extension" of Hamas and the Beirut-based Hizbullah. Hizbullah has been sponsored and financed by Iran and was said to have sent hundreds of operatives to Iraq.

Officials said Hamas agents were believed to be operating in several cities controlled by Sunni insurgents, including Faluja. The U.S. military has launched air strikes on targets of the Tawhid and Jihad group, led by Al Zarqawi.

On Monday, U.S. aircraft conducted what the military termed a successful precision strike on construction equipment belonging to insurgents outside Faluja. The military said the equipment was being used to build combat positions outside the city.

13
posted on 09/21/2004 11:56:27 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Regime's apologists pay some mass medias in order to boost Kerry among Iranian-Americans

SMCCDI (Information Service) Sep 21, 2004

Some of the well known, US based, Islamic regime's apologists and lobbyists have mobilized in order to boost Senator J. Kerry's Presidential Campaign among the Iranian-American community. In that line, paid interviews with their controversial leaders or TV advertisements for Mr. Kerry, with two of the Los Angeles based TV networks, such as "Tamasha" and "Channel One", and "Radio 670 AM" have started since mid-September. But contrary to these three non scrupulous and money oriented networks, all the others, who have a sense of integrity, have rejected the substantial offers made to them.

It has been reported that Tamasha's offices were searched, last week, for an un-revealed reason, by several FBI agents, and that its manager, the money thirsty and a well known Khatami promoter named Farzan Deljou, is under investigation.

The case of Channel one is not better neither and its opportunist manager, Shahram Homayoon who's subject to many controversies and known for enriching himself in the name of 'trying to free Iran', is under increasing sharp attacks made by many Iranians who have become well aware of his dual agenda. The very 'diplomat' Homayoon's crocodile tears for "Iranian Freedom Movement" became more evident when he accepted to interview Akbar Ghahry, a notorious apologist of the regime, in a "face to face program" and stayed mum and without reaction to any of his guest's demagogy contrary to his nightly shows in which he shed tears speaking about the same subjects. The same kind of service was requested, earlier, from the scrupulous networks which had rejected all the proposed remuneration by preferring to stand firm to their principles.

Un-confirmed rumors are stating that the FBI has placed Channel One under observation, as well, due to tips on controversial fundraising and money mismanagement. Several complains seems to have been made by upset supporters who are accusing the network of fraud.

Radio 670 AM is known as "Radio Khatami" by most Iranians residing in S. California. Most of its programs, even after the evident collapse of the sham "reforms in Iran", are focused on promoting a so-called possibility of gradual change within the regime. Most of its political interviews are made with individuals with a bloody past and doing frequent travels to Iran in order to participate in official seminars or to publish their books with the benediction of the notorious Islamist censors. Some of them, such as the notorious Kazem Alamdari or Mohamad Arassi or Ali Shakeri, were former members or affiliates of Marxist terrorist groups who have, in our days, converted into reformists and become Khatami's ardent supporters. This propaganda source is announcing phony polls in which Kerry supposedly beats Bush while in reality, a majority of Iranian-Americans support the current White House resident.

It's to note that the ultimate goal of Mr. Kerry's Iranian connections seems to be trying desperately to promote the Democratic candidate who's victory will bring a concilient US administration toward the shaky Mullhacracy. Most of these few individuals and entities, involved in this agenda, are already known for having bought time for the Islamic regime by promoting the sham "reforms from within" and Khatami's demagogue and corrupt administration. In that line, the most notorious are Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi, Hassan Nemazee, Akbar Ghahary, Faraj Aalaei, Titra Parsi and Susan Akbarpoor, who have founded or are managing very controversial inter-linked and dependant to each other groups, such as, the so-called "Iranian American Political Action Committee" (IAPAC) or the "National Iranian American Council" (NIAC) or Silicon Iran.

Most of the gang was heavily involved in trying to bring the Clinton Administration and the Mullahs together. Speeches and interviews were made, in the presence of the very same J. Kerry, portraying the Islamic regime as almost a kind of Islamic Disneyland and promoting the renew of ties. Madeleine Albright, the then secretary of State, was persuaded to offer the US apology to 'Iran' (meaning the Mullahs' regime). Meetings were organized between the two sides' officials. Money was widely distributed during several fundraisings for US lawmakers including for Senator Joseph Biden, in the Islamist center of Los Angeles which is headed by one of their close colleagues and friends named Sadegh Nemazikhah.

These illegitimate activities were slowed down due to their constant denunciation by groups, such as SMCCDI, and especially due to George W. Bush's victory and the tragedy of 9/11. The approach of the new US Presidential elections have brought the gang to start their activities again but in a more cautious manner.

Fearing a renew of denunciation, by the Iranian opponents, these apologists and lobbyists have adapted to our days political dynamics and seems to be trying to carry the same usual agenda in different manners and by trying to be less noticeable. They have learned the need to claim to be "bi-partisan" or "having just an educative mission" or "just focusing on the future and promotion of Iranians in the US without any goal in foreign policy". Fundraisers are now organized even for soft elements of the Republican camp, such as, Robert Ney and Arlene Specter under the cover of lobbying them for making better the situation of Iranian-Americans in the US, but astonishingly, it was the same Ney and Specter who few months ago announced their goal of engaging the Mullhas 'regime. The deep reality of the new used tactic seems to be the very same, meaning targeting the gradual legitimization of the Islamic republic with the parallel hope of helping it by the establishment of ties with a dreamed future Democratic administration.

It's to note that most of these lobbyists and apologists are master in demagogy and are playing the fear and nationalistic feelings of voters of Iranian origin, in order to use their voices and huge financial resources, in key states such as California, with hope of helping their Democratic protégé. They are targeting the reversal of the increasing negative impression of John Kerry among the majority of Iranians and Iranian-Americans. To that end, the use of all kind of lies or creating fear about the possibility of military strikes or an invasion of Iran, in case of President George Bush's re-election, is on their agenda. Some of them are even playing on the arrests of several Iranians, who have had breached few years ago their immigration status, in order to claim that a new Bush administration might send back to Iran most Iranians living in the US.

Such false statements are made despite the very well known fact that Mr. Bush has always praised the success of the Iranians and especially Iranian-Americans and qualified them as being one of the most advanced and respectable minorities living in America which has made major contribution to its grandor. In addition, they omit to mention that on the fate of the renegade and tyrannical Islamic regime and while rejecting any military option against Iran, Mr. Bush has at several occasions stated to wish to help the Iranians morally in order to bring down the theocratic dictatorship.

The apologists' desperation is due to the increasing popularity of Mr. Bush who's qualified by many Iranians as the "Messiah of Freedom". In contrary, Mr. Kerry has fallen from the eyes of many Iranians as he has promised to legitimize the Mullahcracy if elected. Worst of all, the Democratic candidate who's influenced by Akbar Ghahary and Hassan Nemazee, has announced his intention to make a "nuclear deal" with the terrorist and tyrannical regime ruling in Iran. Such a deal, if it takes place following Kerry's victory, would mean a legitimization of the Islamic regime and a green light for smashing the remain of Iranian opposition inside the country.

On another hand, Kerry's Iranian connections have launched a website in order to increase their activities. This website's domain name, announced by Akbar Ghahary in his recent TV appearances, is: www.iranianamericansforkerry.com . But witnessing the angry reactions of several callers, during the live show, and their support of Mr. Bush, Ghahary has stated: "well you can visit this site and use it to show your support of Mr. Bush" (?).

The latter has been reported as having become very nervous, last Thursday, following the announce of the Movement's Coordinator's live interview, on the subject of Kerry-Iran, with the well respected Ms. Pari Safari of the Los Angles based popular "Radio Voice of Iran" (KRSI).

He seems to have become the chosen new front man of "Kerry's Iranian Campaign". Such choice seems to have occurred as Nemazee, known as Kerry's main Iranian fundraiser and the one who introduced all the gang to him, has been widely discredited beside a majority of Iranians and Iranian-Americans. Nemazee's gradual discreditation was boosted following the spread of the news about his litigation with the Movement and its Coordinator and his lawyers' request to know the emails of SMCCDI's affiliates and members living inside the country.

The SMCCDI's Coordinator will be speaking again, this Thursday and on the Kerry-Iran subject, on the waves of KRSI at 05:00 PM US PST.

14
posted on 09/22/2004 12:00:31 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

A public address to the members of UN at the occasion of the 59th General Assembly

SMCCDI (Public Statement) Sep 21, 2004

Honorable members of United Nations,

Once again you've gathered in an Annual General Assembly, in order to bring your countrymen's messages of hope, for a better common future, or your national or regional requests which are intending to resolve, in a civilized manner, some of the issues that might jeopardize the world's peace, stability and prosperity.

Your gathering's taking place on the symbolic "21st of September", known as the "International Peace Day". But more than ever, fanatic state guided hands of terror and obscurantism are taking innocent lives, by bombing or beheading, and are fueling regional turmoils in order to extend the illegitimate life of their primary repressive mastermind and backer.

Honorable members, as many of you are aware, right now, there is a country and a people seeking a dream. In this country, men and women are stoned because of the accusation of another. In this doomed land, underage girls are hanged to conceal the immoral acts of the officials. This is a place where your eye is gouged out or your hand cut off if you are accused of a false crime. Journalists here, instead of having freedom of the press, suffer the incarceration of body as well as their words. If you ask questions you will probably be beaten. If you refuse to answer questions you will probably be tortured. You may end up dying under mysterious circumstances. Even in death, your soul won't find peace. Your body will hang like fruit from some grisly tree or crane, reminding those close by, of cruel lessons of their masters.

This axis saves the bulk of its evil for its own people. This is the "Islamic Republic"!

Adhering to the long tradition of an unquenchable thirst for power, the mullahs of Iran, these barbarians, these despots, these demagogues, played upon the religious naivety of many of the elder generations to obtain that power. Now after quarter of a century plus of living under the boot of a backward ideological and theological dictatorship, the people of Iran overwhelmingly want radical change; they want their freedom. However, hopes for any real reform from within have long been dispensed with, and in its place are feelings of void and fears of an uncertain future.

Let's dispense with the doubts. Iran's recent parliamentary elections were proven to be another sham. Even the appearance of democratic processes and principals was done away with. So now, let us all be on the same page: the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a democracy, has never been and never will be! The mullahs have robbed a once proud nation of its youth, of its culture, of its intellect, and of its precious resources. Drug abuse, prostitution, the selling of young girls into slavery, official corruption, and brain drain have become heartbreakingly familiar to every Iranian. Political, social, and religious freedoms have become utopic and completely unattainable. Women's rights are a fraying subject, restrained to the shadows of the abuses women are forced to endure. If not by the noose, Iranians are dying a slow death. The Iranian people need your help now. Shame on those who stand on the sidelines and watch as their self-interest and greed drowns out the cries for freedom and justice coming out of Iran. Do not pull a curtain over the atrocities committed by the Islamic Republic regime!

Let's also consider the external ambitions of these murderous mullahs.

The start of the "modern" violent jihad, aimed at progress and the west, began with the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Let us all consider the mullahs' support of various terrorist groups. And this support comes at a time when over 70% of Iran's population live under the poverty line. It is devastatingly obvious that the primary concern of these mullahs is not Iran or Iranians; they just want to further their own cause at all costs. The Islamic regime has been certified as an Al Qaeda sanctuary, as backer of Islamic Jihad, as supporters of Hezbollah. The murderous mullahs have been wreaking havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan, meddling in Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and interfering in Lebanon in hopes of "exporting their revolution" and expanding their rule and influence. At this point, shouldn't we all have learned that engaging the mullahs in "diplomacy", "constructive dialogue" or "nuclear deal" will bear no fruit?

By now, most of us know that Rafsanjani (the regime's powerful and corrupt man) in one of his Friday prayer sermons suggested that his regime with nuclear weapon would not hesitate to attack Israel, because after all, to paraphrase his speech, by doing so we will have ridden the world of half of the Jewish population. And if there is a nuclear response, only less than 1% of the Muslim population will be destroyed (Iran roughly 70 million constitutes less than 1% of Muslim population). This statement was received jokingly, and in tongue and chic by most people outside of Iran. That was then. Today we find out that the Islamic regime is much closer to a nuclear bomb than ever before. Whether that statement was purely political rhetoric, or he was genuinely expressing Mullhacracy's foreign policy, either way, are we willing to take that risk? These mullahs have a tendency of creating trouble and being self-destructive. Let's give this matter the attention that it deserves.

With that said, the peaceful Iranian people need your assurance that once a secular democratic and accountable regime is in power, the world will have no problem with the peaceful "nuclearization of the country". Iran is in dire need of an alternate source of energy. It's the mullahs that are a danger. Can't we all clearly see the confluence of mullahs' megalomania, ego and ambition, and various terrorist groups' ideological goals reaching a dangerous fruition?

These are very difficult times. It seems like many people would rather stick their heads in the sand and just wish it all away, or have some easy, magic solution or platitude (can't we all just get along!!). As unpleasant as the realities are, we cannot run from them. Our parents and grandparents did not run from the unpleasant realities of their days, we owe it to them and future generations not to run from ours. However, complacency is not our biggest hurdle; the real source of our problems lie on the shoulders of greed. There are those who will paint a heaven from hell to ensure loyalty from those monsters of damnation, the mullahs. A few lucrative buy-back contracts are only serving to deepen the pockets of the few and to further enslave the millions.

This all seems to be lost on the "let's talk with the mullahs" crowd. The world needs to stand united and strong against human rights travesties. You need to be on the side of a secularist and pro-democracy movement. Let's not justify the despotic Islamic regimes' existence with "dialogue". You must always stand behind freedom and justice. Let's not tarnish that record by giving credibility to a terrorist and tyrannical regime. Cozying up to the mullahs will only dishearten their victims, the Iranian people. Also, let's not forget that it is the nature of this beast to defer to its primal instincts. The primal instincts, the basic foundation of the Islamic Republic, are its hardline fanatical rhetoric. They, the mullahs, cannot by nature negotiate against those ideas. Even if you try to "get along" with them, they will not and cannot "get along" with you. Let's not betray the freedom-loving people of Iran by easing pressure off the Islamic government. In the end, you will only be betraying yourselves.

The world, in a united voice, needs to support the Iranian people in their ambition and dream of a referendum for a secular government. There is urgent need to keep the pressure on the despotic mullahs. Do not give them an inch for they will take a mile. We need to compel the world to take notice and see the Islamic Republic for what it truly is: indeed, an axis of evil!

Let us all agree that the world's moral support and economical/diplomatic pressure can go a long way. In terms of economical sanctions, you must not withhold life's necessities from the Iranian people, but let's ensure that Iran's corrupt "millionaire mullahs" are not allowed to finance the maintenance of their repressive security machine or sponsor another terrorist act, be it against Westerners or against Iranian citizens. How ironic that Iranians protesting the tyranny of their rulers are beaten by batons and anti-riot gears made in Western democracies!

The Iranian people want change. The failure and punishments of the current Iranian regime have polarized the Iranian people against any type of theocracy. The hearts and minds of the Iranian people are firmly behind a democratic dream.

Honorable members, to help our cause, here's what you must do today: ban officials/agents of the Islamic regime from what are purported to be respectable institutions, such as UN and its affiliates. Eject their envoy from an usurped seat which rightfully belongs to the people of Iran. Inflict them with calculated and heavy sanctions but with clear targets in order to avoid further harming the people. Freeze their governments' and officials' fraudulently cumulated assets abroad. Bring them to an International court of justice for all the crimes and atrocities they've committed in Iran and abroad!

Send a clear message that you are backing our people. Elements within the regime's military, along with thousands of freedom fighters and millions of our countrymen want to see such a clear signal of real support, the same support that you offered the people of South Africa. It is within your means to affect positive changes in Iran.

Do it before it's too late. Do it now!

We're looking for your prompt and responsible help!

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI)

15
posted on 09/22/2004 12:26:40 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

haven't read anything solid on Iran purchasing the Mi-24/35 Hinds,though Russia recently sold a batch of Mi-17 assault helos,which can also launch limited attack missions.The main attack helo for the Iranians seems to be the Cobra even now.

Why should they Buy AK-47 or it ammunition when Iran can make it anyway? Why does he buy AK-47 for US$ 450 when you can buy it for less than USD 100 in open market ??

QUESTION who has to date seen any Mil-24 or Mil-35 in Iran flying on Tarmac of airports ? ........ answer is no one, except the one Iraqi Mi-24 captured in 1986 in front lines and is on display.

As for US$ 5 Billion order, I ask anyone to realistically look at conventional arms transferred to Iran since 1988 and you see how such disinformation we get about Iran and its military Build-up ......

Iran's bloggers in censorship protest

The reformist Emrooz website was blocked - but has now re-appeared

Hundreds of Iranian online journals have been protesting against media censorship by renaming their websites after pro-reformist newspapers and websites that have been banned or shut down by the authorities.

Many of the websites, known as blogs or weblogs, have also posted news items from the banned publications on their websites.

The protest was started by blogger Hossein Derakhshan, a student at Toronto university in Canada.

He told the BBC that although he felt the action was symbolic, he wanted to show Iranian authorities "that they would not be able to censor the internet in the same way as they have managed to control other media".

He said he was delighted with the response.

The hardline Iranian press has published a personal attack on him, he said, "which is proof that the authorities must be worried by the bloggers' protest".

Iranian web

Earlier this month, three reformist websites - Emrooz, Rooydad and Baamdad - re-appeared in a stripped-down form after having been blocked by the authorities.

One of them moved the content of its site onto a blog as a means of getting around the block.

It is thought that the number of Iranians keeping blogs is now between 10,000 and 15,000.

However, some recent reports have now suggested that Iranian authorities are considering the creation of a national intranet - an internet service just for Iran - which would be separate from the world wide web.

This would potentially mean that users would not be able to access anything the authorities do not want them to see.

But Mr Derakhshan said he and his fellow bloggers are working on a strategy to get around the intranet, using email subscription services.

21
posted on 09/22/2004 10:37:08 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Europe Warns Iran Against Nuclear Arms

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Europe warned on Tuesday that it would not tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons after the Islamic republic defied the United Nations (news - web sites) by announcing it had begun converting a large amount of raw uranium to prepare it for enrichment, a process that can be used to develop atomic bombs.

European Union (news - web sites) foreign policy chief Javier Solana said, however, the EU remained committed to offering energy and other cooperation if Tehran abandoned its nuclear ambitions.

Solana spoke to Reuters after a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on the fringes of the U.N. General Assembly that was "frank ... tough and friendly."

Solana sidestepped a question about whether he felt the Iranian nuclear controversy was still open to negotiation.

"I think we have to keep on doing the utmost in talking and dialogue ... If we fail in that direction, we may have to resort to other mechanisms (such as taking the issue to the U.N. Security Council but) we prefer not to have to," he said.

Iran's announcement on Tuesday came just three days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, adopted a resolution calling on Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment.

Iran had promised Britain, France and Germany last October it would freeze all activities related to uranium enrichment.

But Tehran angered the EU's "big three" by reneging on that commitment.

The United States and some other nations believe Tehran intends to use fissile material for weapons. Iran denies that and says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA, which has been probing Iran's nuclear program for two years, has found many previously concealed activities that could be used in weapons production, but no "smoking gun."

Washington believes the resolution passed by the IAEA on Saturday opened the door to tough action by the IAEA board when it meets again in November -- namely, a referral of Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council and possibly economic sanctions.

Solana, in a telephone interview, said he told Kharrazi "in a very clear manner that they had to comply with the (IAEA) report ... and that we will not tolerate that Iran will have nuclear weapons, potentially nuclear weapons."

He described the meeting as "tough and friendly at the same time because we want to maintain a friendly attitude" with Iran.

The IAEA set a fixed period -- the November meeting -- "to clarify the position of Iran (and) we have to use this period to get everybody convinced .. They have to convince us and generate trust that what they are saying is the truth," Solana said.

He said he told Kharrazi "if you don't want to go in the direction of having the capability of nuclear weapons, we can start talking about so many things. The possibilities of dialogue and cooperation between the EU and other countries with Iran are very many," he said.

He declined to say if he thought the United States, which has not had diplomatic relations with Tehran since the 1979 Iranian revolution, should engage in dialogue.

President Bush (news - web sites) has refused to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue, but Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has said he would be willing to talk with Tehran about some kind of a deal.

22
posted on 09/22/2004 10:41:22 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Lovely speech by the president to the UN  but a question. What happened to the Iran paragraph? Just three days ago, the Iranian government formally defied the International Atomic Energy Authority. Breaking promises made as recently as October 2003, Iran will continue to move to enrich uranium  a process that can only be intended for weapons.

By its own rules, the IAEA is now bound to lay the problem before the Security Council. It is perfectly possible of course that the IAEA may shrug the matter off. But to give the agency its due, current director Muhammad el Baradei seems made of tougher stuff than his Swedish predecessor, Hans Blix. But whether el Baradei does his duty or not, this problem will be arriving at the Security Council very shortly.

So shouldnt President Bush have said something about it? Given some public indication of the stance the US will take  and of its expectations of the world community? The president touched on many subjects of interest to the United States, but the looming threat of nuclearization in Iran and the very horrible likelihood that North Korea has already nuclearized surely top the list?

About North Korea there may have been very little the Bush administration could ever have done. Thanks to years of cheating on earlier agreements with the United States, North Korea had almost certainly reached the nuclear threshold by the time Bush camem to office. His main policy choice at that point was whether to sign another phoney deal  this time one that paid North Korea to pretend not to be a nuclear state  or else to isolate North Korea and exact consequences from North Korea and its Chinese patrons.

If North Korea did indeed test a nuclear bomb this weekend, as the IAEA has said North Korea may have done, then the consequences have to begin now: including potentially the acceptance of a South Korean nuclear bomb and further rearmament by Japan and Taiwan. China may not have wished North Korea to go nuclear, but only China could have prevented it  and China chose not to. If Northeast Asia is to become a more dangerous place, China should face some of those new dangers itself.

But there is still time to stop Iran. And the world community is at least theoretically pledged to try. As usual, many countries  including unfortunately some of the European allies  are disposed to shrug the threat off and hope for the best. Some of those allies, even the UN Secretary General, have complained that the US did not give enough heed to UN procedures on Iraq. OK then: Lets see how they follow UN procedures on Iran. The UN speech presented an opportunity to remind those allies of their danger  and their obligations. Why didnt the president make use of it?

23
posted on 09/22/2004 10:46:35 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Deep divisions among the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), currently meeting in Vienna, continue to hamper U.S. efforts on two key fronts: pressing Iran to suspend work on its nuclear program, and referring allegations of Iranian violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to the UN Security Council. With the current meeting unlikely to produce tangible steps to halt Iran's nuclear program, it is important to understand the potential consequences of Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.

Political Dynamics -- Iran and Beyond

Iranian possession of nuclear weapons could have significant political consequences. It might dim prospects for political change in Iran by discouraging supporters of reform and bolstering outspoken hardline supporters of the nuclear program. It might cause some of Iran's neighbors to accommodate the Islamic Republic on various issues, while influencing others to seek an independent deterrent capability or to deepen security cooperation with the United States -- though Iranian nuclear weapons could constrain U.S. military freedom of action in the Persian Gulf as well. Such a development would also likely embolden forces opposed to Arab-Israeli peace (such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hizballah), further complicating efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. And, as Iran eventually extends the range of its missile force to enable it to strike targets outside the Middle East, the states of the European Union will have to factor the country's nuclear potential into their policymaking toward Tehran.

Stoking Proliferation?

North Korea's unchecked development of a small nuclear stockpile has long prompted fears that South Korea and Japan might develop nuclear weapons themselves; recent revelations regarding South Korean enrichment experiments carried our four years ago have vindicated these concerns. Iran's nuclear program -- whether or not it results in a declared nuclear weapons capability -- has likewise raised concerns that it could spur a new round of proliferation in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia might try to purchase a nuclear weapon from North Korea or Pakistan, while some of the smaller Gulf states might leverage their petrochemical industries to produce modest chemical weapon stockpiles for deterrence. Israel would probably continue its successful policy of nuclear ambiguity, though it may find ways to bolster its deterrent posture by further reducing the thin veneer of ambiguity regarding its nuclear status. This could cause Egypt and Syria to explore their nuclear options (although there is reason for concern that Syria is already doing so). Finally, Iran's activities could eventually cause post-Saddam Iraq to consider its nuclear options, if and when a degree of stability returns to that country.

Fostering Stability or Instability?

There are two schools of thought regarding how nuclear weapons affect the behavior of states. One argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons induces greater prudence and caution among possessor states, and adduces U.S. and Soviet behavior during the Cold War as proof (though post-Cold War revelations regarding the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and false warnings of nuclear attacks during the Cold War have diminished the appeal of this model). The other argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons (or, more generally, weapons of mass destruction) can lead to an increased propensity for risk-taking. Thus, Iraq's maturing chemical and biological weapons programs may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to pursue a more aggressive regional policy in 1989-1990 and to invade Kuwait. Similarly, the confidence that Pakistan's leadership drew from its May 1998 nuclear weapons test may have emboldened it to attempt to seize a portion of Kashmir from India, due to its mistaken belief that India would be deterred from responding militarily. This attempt resulted in the Kargil Crisis of May-July 1999.

It is impossible to know how nuclear weapons might affect Iranian policy, though several of the regime's past actions give reason for pause: witness Tehran's employment of gunboat diplomacy in 2001 vis-a-vis Azerbaijan (to halt its exploration for oil in contested portions of the Caspian Sea); its abandonment of an October 2003 agreement with Britain, France, and Germany that temporarily froze key elements of its nuclear program; its humiliating treatment of British servicemen recently detained in the Shatt al-Arab waterway; its threats to annihilate Israel should the latter bomb sites associated with the Iranian nuclear program; and its rebuff of an IAEA request to visit a suspected nuclear site at a military industrial facility at Parchin. Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons might further embolden its increasingly self-confident hardline leadership to bully its neighbors, stiff-arm Europe, threaten Israel, and more aggressively work to undermine U.S. interests in the region.

Military Risk-Taking?

Iranian decisionmakers may believe that the possession of nuclear weapons could provide Tehran with greater latitude to pursue more aggressive policies against its neighbors, the United States, or Israel. Although Iran is unlikely to conduct conventional military operations against any of its neighbors (its conventional military forces are weak, and there are few scenarios in which a conventional military move would make sense), it might increase support for terrorist groups that target U.S. or Israeli interests, or resume efforts to export the revolution to places where there are large Shiite communities.

Implications of Instability in Iran?

Instability and unrest in a nuclear Iran could have dire consequences. Were antiregime violence to escalate to the point that it threatened the survival of the Islamic Republic (unlikely in the near term, but a possibility in the future should popular demands for political change continue to be ignored by conservative hardliners), diehard supporters of the old order might lash out at perceived external enemies of the doomed regime with all means at their disposal, including nuclear weapons. The apocalyptic possibility of nuclear terrorism by an Islamic Republic in its death throes, though unlikely in the near term, cannot be dismissed as a source of concern.

Potential for Nuclear Terrorism?

The fact that Iran or its agents have not yet used chemical or biological agents in terrorist attacks may indicate the existence of a normative threshold, or it may indicate that, having achieved important successes by conventional terrorism (e.g., the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing, which led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon), Tehran perceives no need to incur the risk that the use of weapons of mass destruction would entail. Nevertheless, Iran is likely to seek, when acting against more powerful adversaries, the ability to covertly deliver such weapons by nontraditional means (i.e., terrorists, boats, or remotely piloted aircraft). Because such methods offer the possibility of deniability, they are likely to become important adjuncts to more traditional delivery means such as missiles. In situations in which deniability is a critical consideration, they are likely to be the delivery means of choice. The possibility of deniable, covert delivery of nuclear weapons by Iran could pose a major challenge for deterrence -- particularly if the country's leadership believed that the nation's vital interests or the regime's survival was at stake.

Conclusion

Any assessment of the implications of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is necessarily speculative, and it is unlikely that all of the aforementioned possible outcomes will come to pass. But there can be no doubt that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by an Iran that supports terrorism, seeks hegemony in the Gulf, works to undermine American efforts to achieve Arab-Israeli peace and other critical U.S. interests in the region, and continues to call for the destruction of another UN member-state (Israel), will be a source of instability in a region of strategic importance to the international community.

Michael Eisenstadt is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute.

24
posted on 09/22/2004 10:50:18 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

As Islamic terror continues to spread worldwide, one major news outlet decided that enough is enough - it's time to call terrorism by its name. CanWest, owners of Canada's largest newspaper chain, recently implemented a new editorial policy to use the 'T-word' in reports on brutal terrorist acts and groups.

So when CanWest's National Post published a Reuters report on Sept. 14, they exercised their right to change this Reuters line that whitewashes Palestinian terror:

... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. (Jeffrey Heller, 9/13 'Sharon Faces Netanyahu Challenge')

to this, more accurate line:

... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a four-year-old campaign of violence against Israel.

Reuters didn't like the adjustment, and took the unusual step of officially informing CanWest that if it intended to continue this practice, CanWest should remove Reuters' name from the byline. Why? The New York Times reported (emphasis added):

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

[Schlesinger repeated this statement in a recent radio interview with CBC, when he described the 'serious consequences' if certain 'people in the Mideast' were to believe Reuters called such men 'terrorists.']

This is a stunning admission &#8213; Reuters' top international editor openly acknowledges that one of the main reasons his agency refuses to call terrorists 'terrorists' has nothing to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but rather is a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters.

In every other news arena, western journalists pride themselves on bravely 'telling it as is,' regardless of their subjects' (potentially hostile) reactions. So why do editors at Reuters &#8213; and, presumably, other news outlets; bend over backwards to appease Islamic terrorists, using 'safe' language that deliberately minimizes their inhuman acts?

Scott Anderson, editor-in-chief of CanWest Publications, said that Reuters' policy 'undermine[s] journalistic principles,' and raised the key question: 'If you're couching language to protect people, are you telling the truth?'

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, one of CanWest's newspapers, spells out the issue in black and white:

Terrorism is a technical term. It describes a modus operandi, a tactic. We side with security professionals who define terrorism as the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal. Those who bombed the nightclub in Bali were terrorists. Suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and blow up people eating in a pizza parlour are terrorists. The men and women who took a school full of hostages in Beslan, Russia, and shot some of the children in the back as they tried to flee to safety were terrorists. We as journalists do not violate our impartiality by describing them as such.

Ironically, it is supposedly neutral terms like 'militant' that betray a bias, insofar as they have a sanitizing effect. Activists for various political causes can be 'militant,' but they don't take children hostage.

* * *

The CanWest/Reuters affair is remarkably similar to CNN's Iraqi cover-up from last year, when CNN's top news executive admitted that CNN's knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations in Saddam's Iraq was suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau. We asked back then:

Now that this senior CNN executive has come clean, it leaves us wondering: In what other regions ruled by terrorist dictators do the media toe the party line so as to remain in good stead?

We now have our answer in the Palestinian region. Reuters admits to regulating their language to appease the terrorists; and that's an open admission of pro-Palestinian bias.

(2) If your local paper uses Reuters wire stories for coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, bring Reuters' admission of non-objectivity to the attention of your local editor. (3) Write a short letter to your local newspaper, citing Reuters' declaration that the goal of their soft language is to protect reporters, and recognizing the implication: Reuters is not providing unadulterated, independent coverage of stories like the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

25
posted on 09/22/2004 10:57:46 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Iran's conservative-held parliament has approved the first reading of a bill that will place tough controls on foreign investment.

Embattled reformist President Muhammad Khatami has said the move will deal a major blow to the economy.

"This law is without precedent in the history of the Islamic republic," a visibly angry Khatami told reporters after a cabinet meeting. "It will paralyse the work of the government."

A majority of deputies gave preliminary approval to the bill, which obliges the government to seek the approval of MPs for major deals signed with foreign companies.

"This will discourage foreigners from investing in Iran. This will cost the country billions of dollars," Khatami complained.

"This law signifies that the voice of a government led by a president representing the people has no value and that the government cannot deal with the international community," the president fumed.

Another blow

The vote is yet another setback for Khatami and his reformist-dominated cabinet, already politically isolated after the ouster of reformists from parliament in February's elections.

Hardliners and conservatives took control of the Iranian parliament, or Majlis, after most reformists and moderates loyal to the government were barred from standing in the polls.

Parliament is now scheduled to examine the bill article by article and Khatami said he hoped it would "change the nature of the text" in the process.

In its current form the bill is retroactive and would apply to any contracts signed from the beginning of the current Iranian year on 20 March, and in which a foreign company has more than a 49% stake.

Contracts

It also singles out contracts related to airport services and telecommunications.

This is a direct reference to an airport building and operating contract signed with Tepe-Akfen-Vie (TAV) - an Austrian-Turkish consortium - and a deal with Turkey's Turkcell to provide Iran with more mobile phone lines.

In May, Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards shut down Tehran's new airport arguing that the contract with TAV endangered the Islamic republic's security because the operators also had business dealings with Israel.

27
posted on 09/22/2004 11:24:21 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

You Gave Your Words, Senators. Now, Stand By It!

Last week, while several of the prisoners of conscience in Iran were in hunger strike and close to death, and when a 16 year old girl, Atefeh Sahaleh, was hanged publicly because of bad behavior and her sharp tongue, vice-presidential running mate, Senator John Edwards, made an offer of friendship to the murderous regime of Iran.

He said in an interview that, if elected U.S. president, Senator John Kerry would offer Iran a deal allowing it to keep its nuclear power plants if it gave up the right to retain bomb-making nuclear fuel.

Senators Kerry and Edwards both chose to ignore the fact that the Islamic Regime of Iran (IRI) is a terrorist regime and turned a blind eye to 25 years of atrocities against the Iranian people who are struggling for a secular democracy in Iran .

Sen. John Edwards told The Washington Post that if Iran did not accept this "great bargain," this would confirm that the Islamic state was building nuclear weapons under cover of a nuclear power initiative.

If Iran rejected this proposal, Edwards stated that Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in imposing strict sanctions against Iran .

"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," said Senator Edwards.

"A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capabilities-- Saudi Arabia , Egypt , potentially others," Senator Edwards alleged.

Well, the Islamic Regime did not take this great bargain and their nuclear disarmament plan has been bluntly rejected by the Islamic Regimes foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

Senators Kerry and Edward must now stand by their words and declare that they will impose a strict sanction against the Islamic Regime.

Even if the Islamic Regime of Iran had accepted this offer, it would still have been a murderous regime responsible for the imprisonment, torture, and the execution of thousands of freedom-loving Iranians and not worthy of any sort of recognition. Even if it complies with all the demands of the west regarding the control of its nuclear program, it is still a terrorist regime that has terrorized the Iranians for 25 years and must not be legitimized by any state or state leader that has the slightest respect for human rights and liberties.

Senators Kerry and Edwards ignored the barbaric acts of the terrorist regime that have been systematically exercised for a long time. We did not hear any objections from the world. Now, it is time that the whole world and especially the American people hold them responsible for their words. They offered friendship to one of the most brutal regimes of all time and it was rejected. They promised that if Iran rejected this proposal, they would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in imposing strict sanctions against Iran . They must deliver now on this promise.Maybe it is time to see the reality of the Islamic Regime and come to the conclusion that the existence of this monster is not only a daily danger to the lives of millions of Iranians, but to the world. Maybe it is time to ignore the interest factor and the short term financial interests of the oil companies and start to pay a little attention to humanity.

We do not expect much from the international community in general - the US in particular. We just expect them not to legitimize or help this terrorist regime. We expect a rigid sanction against the IRI, not of the type that we have been witnessing during the years that a sanction was supposed to be enforced, and not of the type that would exclude Halliburton, GE and more than two-hundred American companies. A genuine and real sanction.

We expect the U.S. to reduce its diplomatic relations with the Islamic Regime to the lowest possible level. This regime is not the representative of the Iranian people, and we challenge those who think otherwise by an internationally monitored referendum. If the US government and politicians want to be on the side of the brave Iranians who have not given up hopes in spite of confronting a brutal regime and all its western supporters, they should just give them moral support by declaring that they do not recognize the Islamic Regime as their representatives, and that they would refrain from establishing friendly relations with their abusers.

That is all we believe most Iranians expect from the U.S. and other countries. Just do not help this terrorist regime, and the Iranians themselves will topple the Islamic Regime through disobedience and non-violent action.

Those who listen will earn the love and votes of the Iranians.

Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at the California State University and director of the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) - http://mehr.org

28
posted on 09/22/2004 11:29:04 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

New Iranian Academic Year starts under increased repressive measures

SMCCDI (Information Service) Sep 22, 2004

The new Iranian Academic Year started, today, and millions of school and university students commenced a year placed under increased repressive measures. Militiamen and Bassij paramilitary members were seen posted in front of many schools and universities by questionning, often very brutaly, whom ever seemed "suspect" or not observing the "Islamic moral code".

Several students have been reported as having been beaten up or arrested for their first day of Academic year.

Bust despite all the official desperate tries to intimidate, reports from many academy districts in the Capital and cities, such as Esfahan or Hamadan, are stating about the astonishing refusal of especially school students to chant the regime's anthem and instead to chant the banned Iranian National Anthem "Oh, Iran...!"

Scenes, such as, students turning their backs during the official opening ceremonies of several schools have been reported as well as sporadic slogans against the regime and its leaders.

Fresh political graffitis, such as "Sal e Azadi" (the Year of Freedom), were already noticeable on the first day of classes and hand written and typed tracts calling for solidarity of all students against the regime were seen circulating.

Most first day's discussions were political despite the massive monitoring of the students by members of Herrasat (Intelligence) and Bassij mercenaries deployed in what is supposed to be a place of exchange of thoughts and learning.

Most universities won't become fully operationnal till end of the month and it's doubteful that in the current situation this Academic Year will go till its end.

29
posted on 09/22/2004 11:33:09 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

The Mullahs' Europe

By Robert Spencer September 22, 2004

How quickly is Europe being Islamized? So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-laden career to be strangely disingenuous about certain realities of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, told the German newspaper Die Welt forthrightly that Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.

Or maybe sooner. Consider some indicators from Scandinavia this past week:

 Swedens third-largest city, Malmø, according to the Swedish Aftonbladet, has become an outpost of the Middle East in Scandinavia: The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nationss third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still dont know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized.

 The Nordgårdsskolen in Aarhus, Denmark, has become the first Dane-free Danish school. The students now come entirely from Denmarks fastest-growing constituency: Muslim immigrants.

 Also in Denmark, the Quran is now required reading for all upper-secondary school students. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is unlikely, given the current ascendancy of political correctness on the Continent, that critical perspectives will be included.

 Pakistani Muslim leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed gave an address at the Islamic Cultural Center in Oslo. He was readily allowed into the country despite that fact that, according to Norways Aftenposten, he has earlier make flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes. In Norway, he declined to answer questions about whether or not he thought homosexuals should be killed.

Elsewhere in Europe the jihad is taking a more violent form. Dutch officials have uncovered at least fifteen separate terrorist plots, all aimed at punishing the Netherlands for its 1,300 peacekeeping troops in Iraq. And in Spain, Moroccan Muslims, including several suspected participants in the March 11 bombings in Madrid, have taken control of a wing of a Spanish prison. From there they broadcast Muslim prayers at high volume, physically intimidated non-Muslim prisoners, hung portraits of Osama bin Laden, and boasted, We are going to win the holy war. The guards response? They asked the ringleaders please to lower the volume on the prayers.

What are European governments doing about all this? France is pressing forward with an appeasement campaign to free two French journalists held hostage by jihadists in Iraq. The Swedish state agency for foreign aid is sponsoring a Palestinian Solidarity Conference, which aims, among other things, to pressure the European Union to remove the terrorist group Hamas from the EUs list of terrorist groups  despite Hamass long history of encouraging and glorifying the murder of civilians by suicide bombers.

What Europe has long sown it is now reaping. Bat Yeor, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, the institutionalized oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim societies, chronicles in her forthcoming book Eurabia how it has come to this. Europe, she explains, began thirty years ago to travel down a path of appeasement, accommodation, and cultural abdication before Islam in pursuit of short-sighted political and economic benefits. She observes that today Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a civilization of dhimmitude, i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.

After the Beslan child massacres, however, there are signs from Eastern Europe that this may be changing. Last Sunday Poland turned away one hundred Chechen Muslims who were trying to enter the country from Belarus. This is the sort of measure that the countries west of Poland have been so far unwilling to take. But since one cannot by any means screen out the jihadists from the moderate Muslims, and the moderates are not helping identify the jihadists either, what choice did the Poles have?

It might not be too long before they will have to turn away entrants from Scandinavia and France as well.

30
posted on 09/22/2004 11:37:37 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Iran on the Brink

Short of acquiescence or military action, how can the world community respond to Tehran's nuclear ambitions?

Damage control: Workers try to finish a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, Iran. The US and UN must prevent similar scenarios elsewhere.

WASHINGTON: This weekend, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency called on Tehran to freeze its efforts to produce nuclear fuel, since this would enable Iran to come within days of having a nuclear arsenal. On one side, the US and its allies want Iran to restrain its declared nuclear activities. On the other, Iran and its supporters insist that they have the right to pursue them all. Although it's unclear who will win, what's not is that the dispute is forcing all sides back to square one. At stake is the future of international nuclear controls, as well as any hopes of keeping the Middle East from following Iran's nuclear example.

Unfortunately, these risks are not yet well appreciated. When it comes to Iran's nuclear ambition, everyone, both hawks and doves, Europeans and Americans, is in some form of denial. They all still believe that there is some way to keep Iran from coming within a few weeks of having a nuclear bomb. Iran, however, is no more than 12 to 36 months from acquiring nuclear arms, possesses technology and material to produce them, and seems dead set on securing an option to do so. US officials insist that Iran has begun testing non-nuclear weapons components. Preventing Iran from building the bomb, therefore, can no longer be assured.

Still, most experts don't perceive this urgency. President Bush's detractors believe Iran's nuclear misbehavior is little more than a misunderstanding. By simply dealing directly with Tehran, they insist, the US can resolve the troubling nuclear ambitions. Washington, they argue, should offer a reliable supply of fresh reactor fuel in exchange for Iran's pledge to refrain from making its own (and thereby coming within days of making a bomb). Never mind that the US has tried and failed over the last two decades to settle an array of matters with Tehran, or that Iran's defiance of a year-old nuclear enrichment freeze agreement has humiliated Britain, France, and Germany. A new US president, according to Bush's opposition, can reverse these trends.

White House officials, meanwhile, insist that Iran, having repeatedly violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), should be hauled before the United Nations Security Council to make sure it doesn't get the bomb. After two years of failed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) attempts to get Iran to come clean, UN action is long overdue. What are the chances that the UN can keep Iran from getting the bomb? Judging from the Security Council's inability to ensure Saddam's compliance with international weapons inspections, hardly as much as one would hope.

This, then, gives rise to the hawkish solution: bombing (with or without UN approval). Israeli or US attack of Iran's nuclear plants, this group insists, is the only hope. Striking Iran's known nuclear plants would at least delay its program a few years, but at what cost? Certainly, any lasting results would require a much larger follow-up "game plan" to overthrow the current regime - an endeavor still underway in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If there is no sure way to prevent Iran from getting within a screw driver's turn from having nuclear arms, what should the international community do? The answer: Tackle the most worrisome preventable problems. This would clearly exclude getting Iran to keep its nuclear materials and capabilities out of the hands of terrorists. This scenario is not only unlikely (Tehran's power-controlling Mullahs are unlikely to allow it), but clearly beyond the scope of international powers.

What, then, deserves greater attention? The one thing that's even worse than a nuclear-ready Iran and that can still be thwarted: an entire Middle East cast in Iran's nuclear mold. Earlier in 2004, senior Saudi officials announced their interest in acquiring or "leasing" nuclear weapons from China or Pakistan (a legal move under the NPT, so long as the weapons remain under Chinese or Pakistani "control"). Egypt, having revealed plans to develop a large nuclear desalinization plant, also recently received sensitive nuclear technology from Libya. Syria, meanwhile, is believed to be experimenting with uranium enrichment centrifuges. And Algeria is in the midst of upgrading its second large research reactor facility, which is still, curiously, ringed with air defense units.

If these states continue to pursue their nuclear dreams (spurred by Iran's example), could Iraq, with its considerable number of nuclear scientists and engineers, be expected to stand idly by? And what of Turkey, whose private sector was recently revealed to have been part of Pakistani proliferator Dr. A. Q. Khan's network? Will nuclear agitation to its south and its repeated rejection from the European Union cause Turkey to reconsider its non-nuclear status? What would happen if, under the pressure of increasing anti-US sentiment in Turkey, the US withdrew its forces, along with the tactical nuclear weapons it has based there?

What can be done to stem these developments?

First, the international community must challenge Iran's claim that its nuclear activities are peaceful and protected under the NPT. No nation that sits on so much oil and gas as Iran does has a legitimate, "peaceful" need to generate nuclear electricity. Consider: Had Iran openly solicited proposals to provide electrical generating capacity, all of the non-nuclear bids would have come in at a fraction of the cost of building nuclear power reactors and fuel production plants. These points need to be hammered home in the lead-up to the NPT review conference next May. Certainly, if the NPT is to prevent nuclear proliferation, it cannot allow nations the right to pursue dangerous, uneconomical nuclear activities that bring them within days of having an arsenal.

Second, the US and its allies should build on France's recent proposals that the UN Security Council adopt country-neutral rules for dealing with NPT violators. These rules should stipulate that countries that reject inspections and withdraw from the NPT (something Iran has threatened to do) without first addressing their previous violations must surrender and dismantle their nuclear capabilities (especially large research and power reactors and bulk handling facilities) to come back into compliance. They also would stipulate that nations not found to be in full compliance should no longer receive nuclear assistance from any other country (e.g., Russia to Iran to complete the reactor at Bushehr, which has been the "peaceful" justification for Iran's most dangerous nuclear activities) until the IAEA Board of Governors unanimously issues a clean bill of health.

Surely, if France can support such rules, so can Europe, the US, and its allies. If these nations unite, Russia, moreover, will likely follow, particularly if it receives a reward. (Here, one might start with the cost-free nuclear cooperative agreement Moscow has been seeking for so many years from the US.)

Finally, the US and its allies need to pace themselves. In the end, the only sure path to nonproliferation is more moderate self-rule and increased arms restraint backed by US and allied military resolve and economic cooperation. Iran's current rulers, for sure, will have to go. Until then, though, bombing or bribing Tehran should be put aside in favor of tightening up and enforcing the rules to keep others from following Iran's example.

Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, DC, and is editor with Patrick Clawson of "Checking Iran's Nuclear Ambitions" (US Army War College, 2004).

31
posted on 09/22/2004 11:39:38 AM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Why should they Buy AK-47 or it ammunition when Iran can make it anyway? Why does he buy AK-47 for US$ 450 when you can buy it for less than USD 100 in open market ??

QUESTION who has to date seen any Mil-24 or Mil-35 in Iran flying on Tarmac of airports ? ........ answer is no one, except the one Iraqi Mi-24 captured in 1986 in front lines and is on display.

As for US$ 5 Billion order, I ask anyone to realistically look at conventional arms transferred to Iran since 1988 and you see how such disinformation we get about Iran and its military Build-up ......

So my conclusion on the report is that, this is a False Report."

I just spoke with Banafsheh.

She attributes the report to a "highly reliable source within the Iranian Intelligence community that has always provided reliable information." She stands by the report.

She also told me she is publishing a report on Iranian response to Michael Moore's movie "Fahreheit 9/11" which is now showing in Tehran. Contrary to other posts on this thread she claims people are rejecting the film as propaganda. The report will be release by week's end.

32
posted on 09/22/2004 12:16:04 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Iranian Political Analyst Proposes Sinking a Ship in the Straits of Hormuz

The following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian political analyst Abo al-Fazl Zohreh-Vand:

Abu Al-Fazl: Iran is in a position where a nuclear attack against it is impossible. If it were to be attacked, the whole international atmosphere would be distorted. Everyone always talks about the oil in the Caucasus and central Asia. These are negligible quantities. Today, more than 70% of the oil comes from the Persian Gulf.

If something happens to the Hormuz Straits  if only one ship were to sink there  the oil [supply] would stop and then you'd see what happen's to the world economy. Why should a bomb fall? Suppose some ship falls Suppose some tanker sinks in the Hormuz Straits As you know, there are two narrow waterways in the Hormuz Straits. One lane is used coming and the other is used going. Outside these corridors no ship can move. The water's depth permits passage only through these two lanes. If some tanker were to sink in one of these lanes, it will be impossible to export oil.

DoctorZin Note: To view this video click on the MemriTV logo above.

34
posted on 09/22/2004 4:46:57 PM PDT
by DoctorZIn
(Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Durin Bam earth quake, she claimed the Nuke tests caused the quake and when she was asked about her source, she mentioned "highly reliable source within the Iranian Intelligence community. But Scientific results showed that the quake was natural.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.